01 February 2009

Weasel words: "homophobic"

Julie Bindel: A Christian group's campaign to protect the 'freedom' to be homophobic is grossly hypocritical:
I am all for freedom of speech, as long as it does not favour one person or group over the other. If it is deemed acceptable for Christians to say that homosexuality is a sin, for example, but not a person interviewing you for a job in a local authority, then that is unfair and hypocritical. So why on earth was a so-called 'free speech protection' clause added to the new offence of 'incitement to homophobic hatred' last May? It was to pander to Christian and other religious folk, and reads: '… the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.'

Julie Bindel's article shows precisely why such a protection clause is needed, because her article is grossly Christianophobic, and is calculated to stir up hatred against Christians. If it is unfair to favour one group or person over another, why should the law favour Christianophobes?

Christians have generally believed that fornication and adultery are sins, and documents such as the New Testament urge people to abstain from them. Julie Bindel appears to believe that this should be "taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred".

A person interviewing someone for a job in a local authority, however, has no business asking people about their sexual practices or conduct if these are not illegal, even if the interviewer is a Christian or a member of any other group that happens to believe that fornication and adultery are sinful.

This applies whether the fornication or adultery is committed with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. A person interviewing someone for a job with a local authority should be concerned primarily with the interviewee's qualifications and ability to do the job. Unless their sexual conduct is likely to interfere with that (such as a record of sexual harassment of fellow-workers, clients or customers), their sexual conduct should not concern the interviewer.

In Christian ethics hating other people is as much a sin as fornication or adultery, as is inciting hatred against other people. That doesn't prevent Christians from hating other people, any more than it prevents them from committing fornication and adultery. Urging people to refrain from or modify such conduct is not itself an act of hatred or incitement to hatred, no matter how much people like Julie Bindel may misrepresent it. And the very fact that people miosrepresent it as such is itself an incitement to hatred and shows that such protection is needed.

The use of such arguments shows that the word "homophobic" can itself be used to incite hatred, and has become a weasel word that means nothing.

3 comments:

the Pink Pasty said...

You should read the abuse posted by Christians attacking a former homeless 15yr old gay youth for 'daring' to raise awareness as to the depth of abuse carried out against gay people by the authorities in the UK.

Watch the youth's own videos on his youtube channel

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr7eGX-Rux0

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCqDEEc_TOw

Crushed said...

It's a grey area.

There is a fine line and it does need to be drawn in the right place.

The question of whether catholic Adoption agencies should be allowed to refuse gay couples was an issue over here a while back. It's a moot point and one I can't quite make my mind up on.

Steve Hayes said...

Pink Pasty,

I don't doubt that there is such abuse, but I don't watch online videos, because it consumes too much bandwidth.

Crushed,

Yes, it is a fine line, and it can be crossed from either side. I think Julie Bindel crossed it.

Adoption is a different issue, though.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails